Strange women 'possessed' while assaulting man on Edmonton train

[RandV80]

She assaulted him, likely while tripping on a chemical concoction of heavy duty drugs. He had every right to defend himself.

If that was a man attacking a woman, everyone here would be outraged and baying for his blood. The fact that there's even a question being asked shows a disgusting, sexist attitude that the man has to be in the wrong. She is violent and probably a druggie and he is a victim of assault. If feminists want to moan and complain about "equality", then they shouldn't have an issue holding that woman to account for her criminal actions.

There's such a thing as weight class. Rather than being a thing between male/female, the guy probably had 5 inches and 100 pounds on her. He was never really in much danger, and if push came to shove could have destroyed her. Not to say a bigger person can't defend themselves from a smaller person, but as someone else already said here in Canada we have a 'reasonable defense' clause for these situations. That makes it a bit of a grey area, but the example my old martial arts instructor used to use if someone in a bar gives you a shove, and you respond by picking up a bar stool and smashing it over his head, then yeah you're going to jail!

In Canada you have a civil right to defend yourself, you don't have a civic right to revenge.

 

[Therumancer]

I have mixed opinions on the subject. Over the years I've become "gender blind" when it comes to fights and assaults after long experience. Simply speaking the girl in this case initiated it, and is purely in the wrong. For the most part for a normal person retreat is expected, and it becomes more controversial when she was walking away, but at the same time this is a confined area (subway car) and the lady in question was initiating attacks without any real provocation, under the circumstances he could not really flee to an area where she would no longer present any threat. In that case acting to remove the threat becomes reasonable. That's how I would have handled it if I was responding to this as security, but of course this represents some very unusual circumstances that wouldn't have occurred where I worked,
like a confined area. Of course none of this would have meant a lack of legal action against him since a lot depends on the laws, and I wasn't a cop, my report from the monitor room or whatever would have just had a mitigating effect. As much as the whole "don't hit girls" persists, I'll be blunt in saying that girls can do some real damage if you just let them beat on you, and in this case he seemed to be dealing with a crazy junkie.

Had I been the guy in the situation I might have been able to handle it differently (key word might) but I'm not a normal situation, as I've dealt with messed up people quite a bit without it turning into serious violence (at least directed at me). I am merely commenting on my observations.

I'll also say that dealing with something from a position of detachment, looking at a video, or reading an article, is something entirely different from being there. Situations like this can be freaky, and as a general rule the code I recommend people live by is "I'd rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6". When your say doing an alcohol shut off on some dude who is blasted and extremely angry, it's different to say how police or security should react from a distance than to be there as the guy who risks getting punched, or getting a broken bottle slammed into his face, and some unstable guy walking away from you doesn't mean he's not going to have second thoughts and turn right back around. Of course I've handled pretty much every incident of this kind of thing without violence, but I know cases where people were not so lucky. Dealing with people messed up on junk can be quite similar, and even less predictable.

 

[Sniperyeti]

I honestly feel really bad for the guy. Firstly he had a crazy person just randomly attack him. Then HE looks like the bad guy because he does this "What?! WTF did you attack me for?!" After the attacker just suddenly loses interest and wanders away. Meanwhile some shitstain records the whole thing and does nothing.

People who know they have mental issues, know that they have violent tendencies and do not seek any help get no sympathy from me. I really doubt this is the first time the woman in the video has done this.

That "shitstain" is the reason we know the truth of what happened here. I would call that something.

While the expletive might be over the top, surely you'd agree that assisting to end the fight and providing testimony to police afterwards is the better thing to do; rather than record the violence and upload it to the internet?

The bystander effect can be really quite nasty man, we shouldn't morally condone people who refuse to assist but are happy to voyeuristically watch events unfold.
http://nypost.com/2010/04/24/stabbed-hero-dies-as-more-than-20-people-stroll-past-him/
(EDIT: changed link to a more recent and relevant example)

 

[WeepingAngels]

I honestly feel really bad for the guy. Firstly he had a crazy person just randomly attack him. Then HE looks like the bad guy because he does this "What?! WTF did you attack me for?!" After the attacker just suddenly loses interest and wanders away. Meanwhile some shitstain records the whole thing and does nothing.

People who know they have mental issues, know that they have violent tendencies and do not seek any help get no sympathy from me. I really doubt this is the first time the woman in the video has done this.

That "shitstain" is the reason we know the truth of what happened here. I would call that something.

While the expletive might be over the top, surely you'd agree that assisting to end the fight and providing testimony to police afterwards is the better thing to do; rather than record the violence and upload it to the internet?

The bystander effect can be really quite nasty man, we shouldn't morally condone people who refuse to assist but are happy to voyeuristically watch events unfold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.

 

[Vault101]

I honestly feel really bad for the guy. Firstly he had a crazy person just randomly attack him. Then HE looks like the bad guy because he does this "What?! WTF did you attack me for?!" After the attacker just suddenly loses interest and wanders away. Meanwhile some shitstain records the whole thing and does nothing.

People who know they have mental issues, know that they have violent tendencies and do not seek any help get no sympathy from me. I really doubt this is the first time the woman in the video has done this.

people who have mental issues arent always in the best position to judge the fact they have metal issues and/get help, they often need people to take the initiative for them

also as weve been over..self defense is fine untill it becomes an excuse for violence

 

[Sniperyeti]

The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.

I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.

Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?

Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?

Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?

 

[WeepingAngels]

The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.

I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.

Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?

Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?

Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?

Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?

I think having a perfect witness to a crime is invaluable, don't you?

 

[Sniperyeti]

The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.

I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.

Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?

Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?

Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?

Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?

I think having a perfect witness to a crime is invaluable, don't you?

No, I disagree.

Another person involved in the fight, for the purpose of defence of another, is protected by the law of Necessity. Of course that changes if the purpose of their involvement is to deliberately inflict harm etc, but that is not the sort of involvement I am arguing should have occurred here. Similarly, the initial victim was legally justified in acting in self defence while he was the victim of the initial attack.

This changes, as several people have mentioned above, when the initial assault is over and the victim begins his own assault on the attacker who is moving away (provocation is a matter of sentencing, not a defence).

There are issues with the value you place on the phone video. Evidence such as this is still subject to challenge and debate in a court of law, it does not result in some sort of incontrovertible 'cast iron case' which the initial victim can use to defend himself - particularly in the present case where it indicates he initiated a second attack outside of self defence. Testimony of witnesses may be challenged in cross examination, but in relatively minor cases like this is of sufficient weight as a record of events; particularly in a public space with multiple witnesses.

Beyond the law, my personal view (and if you read the second article I linked you might find the view of the general public) is that the morally correct action is intervention and protection. Quite besides whether the evidence gained in making the video is useful in a later case, the superior ethical interest should be in prevention of further harm.

I suppose my position is that a fight without witnesses where no one is hurt is better than a fight with witnesses where someone is seriously injured. Even if the involvement of bystanders is necessary to bring about the latter situation, it is still the preferable final outcome.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

He went a little overboard in his response, but I can imagine being seriously angry with that girl for doing that. Yanking on someone's hair like that can be pretty painful, and she just randomly slammed his head into the side there.

Everyone's kinda screwing up here. The woman for starting it, the man for not letting it go, the witness for filming random strangers on the train, and the bystanders for just... bystanding.

Seriously, a better question is why didn't anyone intervene? She looked like she was about to choke him for a second there. Someone should've stepped in.

As for the legality... the woman did start the fight, but he really shouldn't have pursued. If this sort of thing were up to me, I'd probably punish them both - the guy would get a lighter sentence because he was clearly provoked, even though he shouldn't have perpetuated the fight, and the woman would if her actions are due to drugs or mental illnesses. If she just decided to threaten some random guy on the subway, than full sentence for her.

I'm curious why doing it because of drugs means she should get a lighter sentence. You choose to do drugs, and as such you are responsible for what you do under their influence. I'd say the same thing about alcohol too (note, this isn't including what people do to you, I'm not condoning rape here). Mental illness, sure, you should make considerations for that because it's not a conscious choice you're making

 

[WeepingAngels]

The video is an accurate witness of the facts, no one can dispute it. Sorry, but I think the video is more valuable than adding a third person to the fight.

I have difficulty understanding the moral viewpoint you are coming from.

Why is a record of the event more important than intervening to prevent physical harm to another?

Why is adding a third person to the 'fight' to be avoided when it is for the purpose of preventing further conflict rather than deliberately inflicting harm on one of the parties?

Why do you consider it acceptable for the originally assaulted party to start another fight after the initial confrontation has ended, but consider it unacceptable for a third person to join the initial confrontation?

Another person involved in the fight is another person arrested and since that person would no longer be recording, the cops won't have a video witness. How is that a better scenario?

I think having a perfect witness to a crime is invaluable, don't you?

No, I disagree.

Another person involved in the fight, for the purpose of defence of another, is protected by the law of Necessity. Of course that changes if the purpose of their involvement is to deliberately inflict harm etc, but that is not the sort of involvement I am arguing should have occurred here. Similarly, the initial victim was legally justified in acting in self defence while he was the victim of the initial attack.

This changes, as several people have mentioned above, when the initial assault is over and the victim begins his own assault on the attacker who is moving away (provocation is a matter of sentencing, not a defence).

There are issues with the value you place on the phone video. Evidence such as this is still subject to challenge and debate in a court of law, it does not result in some sort of incontrovertible 'cast iron case' which the initial victim can use to defend himself - particularly in the present case where it indicates he initiated a second attack outside of self defence. Testimony of witnesses may be challenged in cross examination, but in relatively minor cases like this is of sufficient weight as a record of events; particularly in a public space with multiple witnesses.

Beyond the law, my personal view (and if you read the second article I linked you might find the view of the general public) is that the morally correct action is intervention and protection. Quite besides whether the evidence gained in making the video is useful in a later case, the superior ethical interest should be in prevention of further harm.

I suppose my position is that a fight without witnesses where no one is hurt is better than a fight with witnesses where someone is seriously injured. Even if the involvement of bystanders is necessary to bring about the latter situation, it is still the preferable final outcome.

I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.

 

[lacktheknack]

Christ, that's where I sit on the train. ;____;

It's weird that one lady making weird faces and choking a random dude in my city is enough to get international attention... o___O

Then again, we are the country's murder capital (last I checked, anyways) and near the top of the drug list as well. It's not surprising that the "Canadian Bath Salts Incident" would come from this city.

 

[Sniperyeti]

I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.

What I was advocating is intervention to prevent the fight, rather than 'jumping in' and trying to inflict further harm. However, if you're finished with the argument I won't pursue the point.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I think that the more people you add to the fight, the more likely someone will be injured. If one person jumps in then more people might also jump in (a mob mentality) and then you have a much bigger problem than you started with. We'll have to agree to disagree. I am just not interested in arguing about the bystanders actions.

What I was advocating is intervention to prevent the fight, rather than 'jumping in' and trying to inflict further harm. However, if you're finished with the argument I won't pursue the point.

Thanks. Just to be clear, I understand what you are saying but things don't always happen as intended. The person jumping in to help might become part of the fight when a punch lands in his face. You also can't account for the other bystanders who may only jump in after the first person does, think of a bar fight.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Do onto others as you would have others do onto you. If I have a bad day, get drunk and get into a fight with someone sober, I want to be treated in the best possible way, just as I would do if the situation was reversed.

Being drunk or messed up on drugs does not forfeit one's right to health, well being, or life.

No, but using those things as an excuse does not mean you get to walk away from a situation like that without expecting some kind of retribution. What if you were the person being choked and you were 'having a bad day' already, and some kid on the train fucking with you is enough to push you over the edge? Being blinded by rage from righteous anger doesn't mean you forfeit any of the things you listed either.

Looks like something staged that went awry. I doubt she was on drugs that would have made her act that way, as I'm sure the police officers would have done more than just fine her $500 dollars after bringing her in for an interview, which is the only consequence I have been able to dig up. That 'demonic possession' is the only excuse anyone there can dredge up for her behavior is absolute bullshit. Pretty sure anyone 'possessed' would have done more than kick at the guy. So yeah, unless more information surfaces, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on her 'break down'.

A lot of young people do stupid shit like this and post it on YouTube all the time, often targeting older people because they think that they won't fight back.

 

[Shinkicker444]

I dunno if someone walked up to me and grabbed me around the throat (regardless of their intentions to walk away) I probably would have punched them out of reflex, probably in the throat. Been choked once before not going to let that happen again, ever. Based on watching that video, I'm honestly surprised he held back as long as he did - out of shock I'd say. Then he reacted after the shock had worn off, instinct or whatever.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I can't help but feel as if the guy got fucked over here. The chick conveniently stops being "possessed" as the cops/security pretty much turn up and he gets tackled because of it. Fuck I know self defense stops being so when the attacker ceases their action, but still, you can hardly fault the man for reacting the way he did - even after he already pushed her back and told her to "chill". I'm assuming she is either malicious or on some form of drug, and obviously, neither are acceptable. But yeah, I feel sorry for the man here. It really does seem he got screwed over.

Also, for that person saying "stop, she's probably possessed!". No, you stop saying fantastical bullshit during real events.

 

[Mad World]

So I can come up and attack you and when I back off, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything to me?

While I completely sympathize with the man, he technically utilized more force than necessary when he pursued her; if he would have retaliated right after she attacked him, it would be a different story.

The man could actually be charged. I'm not saying that he should, but it may very well happen.

 

[DementedSheep]

I can't help but feel as if the guy got fucked over here. The chick conveniently stops being "possessed" as the cops/security pretty much turn up and he gets tackled because of it. Fuck I know self defense stops being so when the attacker ceases their action, but still, you can hardly fault the man for reacting the way he did - even after he already pushed her back and told her to "chill". I'm assuming she is either malicious or on some form of drug, and obviously, neither are acceptable. But yeah, I feel sorry for the man here. It really does seem he got screwed over.

Also, for that person saying "stop, she's probably possessed!". No, you stop saying fantastical bullshit during real events.

I don't know what's up the girl. We can only speculate but I do feel sorry for the guy. I still don't he should have done what he did (that is going after her after she had stopped) but its understandable. I don't blame the cops for tackling him either though they were reacting to situation they had when they got there.
And yes with they guys saying she possessed? really? in this day and age that is what you think this is?

 

[lacktheknack]

Looks like something staged that went awry. I doubt she was on drugs that would have made her act that way, as I'm sure the police officers would have done more than just fine her $500 dollars after bringing her in for an interview, which is the only consequence I have been able to dig up.

It's funny, because you think the Canadian Justice system has any balls.

It doesn't.

A $500 fine is shockingly high for this type of encounter, assuming drugs were involved.

Also... yeah, the people on those trains are messed up. I've sat next to a guy who was discussing beheadings with his imaginary friend. I have no issue believing that a druggie got on the train, and can't imagine what "staged" thing you could be referring to.

 

[manic_depressive13]

So I can come up and attack you and when I back off, you shouldn't be allowed to do anything to me?

I should be allowed to press charges. I shouldn't be allowed to attack you because you did it first. This is the real world, not a fucking playground.